Teams

MTS:Helme:Frawley

2025 NH Adult 65 & Over Women Day · 7.0 Women 1

16 players · average NTRP 3.33 / NEW HAMPSHIRE

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2025-06-26vs YORK:Phillips:FosterWon 30
W#1 DoublesSusan Johanson / Lois Nardo vs Margaret Galligan / Ann Hollingsworth6-3, 6-1
W#2 DoublesRebecca Helme / Debi Seamans vs Ginger Kraus / Elyssa DelValle7-6, 4-2
W#3 DoublesJane Frawley / Nancy Stehno vs Fern Phillips / Sally Sulloway6-0, 6-2
2025-06-19vs GB:CourtSavvy:Billipp:LovejoyWon 21
L#1 DoublesKathleen Foley / Lois Nardo vs Roberta Sullivan / Margie Carley6-7, 2-5
W#2 DoublesBetsy Kretschmer / Jane Frawley vs Patricia Lovejoy / Donna Stevens7-6, 6-3
W#3 DoublesSharon Goolbis / Rebecca Helme vs Ruth Gray / Karen Billipp6-3, 6-3
L#1 DoublesJane Frawley / Lois Nardo vs Joyce Sylvester / Caren Steele6-7, 2-4
W#2 DoublesRebecca Helme / Sharon Goolbis vs Donna Harrigan / Nancy Tothill6-0, 6-1
L#3 DoublesNancy Stehno / Debi Seamans vs PETRICE RANNO / Jennifer Correia1-6, 3-6
2025-05-15vs GB:CourtSavvy:Billipp:LovejoyWon 20
W#1 DoublesJane Frawley / Lois Nardo vs Patricia Lovejoy / Donna Stevens6-0, 6-3
W#3 DoublesKaren Padgett / Patricia Waldvogel vs Linda Bieber / Tannye Wold6-3, 6-2
2025-05-08vs HH:Expectations:Shenk:BrindisiWon 30
W#1 DoublesKaren Padgett / Nancy Donahue vs Nancy Vieira / Debora Thoele -Cziprusz6-1, 6-2
W#2 DoublesLisa Andrews / Sharon Goolbis vs Nancy Pariser / Cher Barker6-3, 6-0
W#3 DoublesAlice Podesta / Nancy Stehno vs Michelle Ettelson / Linda Rousseau7-6, 6-2
W#1 DoublesNancy Donahue / Karen Padgett vs Joyce Sylvester / Nancy Tothill6-3, 6-2
W#2 DoublesSharon Goolbis / Lois Nardo vs PETRICE RANNO / Donna Harrigan6-3, 7-5
W#3 DoublesSusan Johanson / Debi Seamans vs Michelle Skinner / Jean Selig6-2, 6-3
A tie can be incomplete. Tell us if someone is missing.
i
Grouped by tie — one fixture, several lines. A line shows only when a player on it is someone we have indexed, so an early-season tie for a newly-added team can look short. This also means the line count here will not match the header, which counts individual player appearances.
Flight standings5 teams · 7.0 Women 1
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1HH:Expectations:Shenk:Brindisi0421022136
2MTS:Helme:Frawley061536109
3YORK:Phillips:Foster0651326166
4GH:TripleTroublemakers:Sylvester:Steele07111023181
5GB:CourtSavvy:Billipp:Lovejoy07101125187

Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.

See the full flight, with every team’s record

ScoutingWhere each opponent usually plays

Signed-in extra: whether this captain plays strict strength order or mixes it up, from every doubles line they have put out. Create a free account to see it.

Roster averages 3.03 estimated across 9 rated players. No lineup is published in advance, so the column below is where each player has actually been used — a captain's habits are the best available forecast. Sign in and claim your record to see who you have played.

3.30
Karen Padgett
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
Betsy Kretschmer
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.17
Kathleen Foley
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.15
Lois Nardo
usually #1 Doubles 80%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published
3.09
Debi Seamans
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.08
Susan Johanson
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
3.03
Sharon Goolbis
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published
2.94
Marie Stevens
published
2.90
Nancy Stehno
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.57
Alice Podesta
usually #2 Doubles 40%, also #1 Doubles 40% · published 3
Jane Frawley
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published
Jill Firstbrook
published
Lisa Andrews
published
Nancy Donahue
published
Patricia Waldvogel
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Rebecca Helme
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
Established pairs

Doubles pairs from this roster with three or more matches together anywhere — ordered by performance against what the rating gap predicted, not by record.

Lois Nardo + Nancy Stehno5258% games+10.1% vs expected
Debi Seamans + Rebecca Helme4548% games+8.6% vs expected
Jane Frawley + Rebecca Helme6450% games+3.3% vs expected
Rebecca Helme + Lois Nardo2644% games+1.7% vs expected
Debi Seamans + Susan Johanson10454% games−0.3% vs expected
Rebecca Helme + Susan Johanson2743% games−1.5% vs expected
Marie Stevens + Karen Padgett1639% games−1.8% vs expected
Rebecca Helme + Sharon Goolbis6650% games−8.3% vs expected
Roster

Ordered by our estimated dynamic rating, which is why two players at the same published level are not tied — a published 4.0 says nothing about where inside the band someone sits. Lines played in this team’s season are shown beside each name.

Karen Padgett
113W–147L career · 3 lines in 2025
2%91%7%
3.30
3.5
Betsy Kretschmer
62W–27L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Kathleen Foley
56W–43L career · 1 line in 2025
11%88%1%
3.17
Lois Nardo
85W–97L career · 5 lines in 2025
14%85%1%
3.15
3.5
Debi Seamans
45W–58L career · 3 lines in 2025
27%73%<1%
3.09
Susan Johanson
31W–41L career · 2 lines in 2025
29%71%<1%
3.08
Sharon Goolbis
38W–66L career · 4 lines in 2025
41%59%<1%
3.03
Marie Stevens
52W–76L career · no lines in 2025
66%34%<1%
2.94
Nancy Stehno
74W–69L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%76%23%
2.90
3
Alice Podesta
28W–63L career · 5 lines in 2025
30%70%<1%
2.57
Jane Frawley
32W–57L career · 4 lines in 2025
not enough data
Jill Firstbrook
6W–7L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Lisa Andrews
11W–12L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Nancy Donahue
23W–37L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Patricia Waldvogel
35W–25L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Rebecca Helme
37W–47L career · 3 lines in 2025
not enough data

Three percentages are where each player stands right now: the chance they are below their band, inside it, or above it, on the way they are playing this season. The number on the right is our estimated dynamic rating, which USTA never publishes. This is today rather than a forecast of December, because a forecast has to assume future matches and cannot know whether someone will even be offered them. Percentages are blank where a player has too few matches this season, or at a level where the model does not yet beat a base-rate guess; the estimate is a weaker claim than a probability and survives where those do not.

Not affiliated with or endorsed by the USTA. Ratings labelled as published are USTA year-end figures; anything we describe as an estimate is ours, not USTA’s. Match data is from USTA TennisLink.